HRTO 2013

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application for delay and to remove the two named personal respondents.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, as the formal termination of employment and subsequent communications to Service Canada constituted incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents, finding their alleged conduct in failing to accommodate the applicant's disability and terminating her employment was a central issue in the case.

Both requests were denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant provided a physician's note confirming his inability to attend.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of a party constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld a human rights complaint and ordered remedies.

The respondent sought to introduce new evidence and argued the decision conflicted with Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair deficiencies in a party's case.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that its procedure was violated.

The applicant filed 57 applications against multiple respondents.

The Tribunal directed summary hearings to determine if the applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success or as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed multiple requests for reconsideration of the Case Assessment Directions and requests for orders during the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for reconsideration because the directions were not final decisions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the requests for orders, finding they lacked merit and appeared intended to overwhelm the Tribunal, and directed the applicant to cease filing further requests pending the summary hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and reprisal.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance and minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the dismissal request and granted the applicant's union, UFCW Local 175, intervenor status.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadlines and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

In her written submissions responding to the NOID, the applicant clarified that she was alleging age discrimination and reprisal for complaining to human resources.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that it be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and sex, related to her termination following a pregnancy and parental leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing proceeding under the Employment Standards Act concerning the same pregnancy and parental leave issues.

Despite the applicant's objection that her human rights claim included additional grounds, the Tribunal found substantial factual overlap and deferred the application pending the completion of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain new legal representation after the Tribunal removed his previous representative.

The respondent did not take a position on the request.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, as the applicant was diligent in retaining representation and found himself unrepresented through no fault of his own.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, denied the applicant's request to exclude late-filed documents, and extended the time for the respondent to reply to a document production request.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

She subsequently filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to remove one personal respondent and add another, stating she had made an administrative error in her initial filing.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not object to the requests and had already filed Responses to the Application.

The Tribunal granted the requests, ordering the removal of the mistakenly named respondent and the addition of the intended respondent, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant, a journeyman carpenter, alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

He claimed the union skipped his name for work dispatch, removed him from the available-to-work list, and failed to dispel rumours about his physical capacity to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the skipped dispatches were due to data-entry errors regarding his qualifications, not discriminatory motives.

Furthermore, the union's request for a medical report was justified given safety concerns, and it had no positive obligation under the Code to dispel industry rumours.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her WSIB appeal.

The applicant provided the Appeals Resolution Officer's decision.

The respondent did not file any response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on marital status, sex, and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information regarding the gender makeup of its workforce during the applicant's employment, finding it arguably relevant to the workplace context.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for the gender identity of employees' IBI Competency scores, finding it not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his termination was a reprisal for an earlier sexual harassment complaint.

The respondent school board requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it had discriminated against a student with a disability by reducing his Educational Assistant support, failing to provide a behaviour management plan, and excluding him from school.

The respondent alleged several factual errors in the original decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged errors, even if corrected, would not alter the outcome of the decision and that the respondent was attempting to re-argue matters already decided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the allegations were also the subject of two ongoing grievances proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievances, noting that deferral is generally appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and two individuals.

The applicant's union, CUPE Local 1883, filed a request to intervene.

A summary hearing was scheduled but the Tribunal failed to provide notice to the union.

On consent of the parties, the summary hearing was adjourned to allow notice to be given to the union.

The Tribunal also granted the union's unopposed request to intervene, consistent with its practice of granting intervention status to bargaining agents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.